Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 10 November 2021
154. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of instances of fraud in relation to the pandemic unemployment payment identified by her or her Department to date; the nature of the incidents; and the estimated cost to the State of said fraud in each incident. [54937/21]
View answer155. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Social Protection her views on the fact that proof of unemployment was not required as part of the application for receipt of the pandemic unemployment payment; if she regrets same; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [54938/21]
View answer156. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Social Protection if her Department has evidence or statistics which suggest that persons who were in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance prior to the pandemic applied successfully for the pandemic unemployment payment once the pandemic started; if so, the details of same; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [54939/21]
View answer157. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of pandemic unemployment payments which were made to persons resident outside of the State. [54940/21]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 154 to 157, inclusive, together.
The Pandemic Unemployment Payment (PUP) was introduced in an extremely short period of time in order to cushion the incomes of citizens following the onset of an unprecedented public health crisis. Within a month of the PUP scheme going live, over 507,000 people received at least one payment. Recipient numbers peaked at 602,108 on 8 May 2020. My Department has processed in excess of 1.7 million applications for the PUP, from over 900,000 applicants and made almost 27.7 million separate PUP payments. The number of claims received and processed is equal to approximately 9 times a normal annual claim load. Delivering the scheme on such a scale and in such a short time represented a major achievement.
At all times during this process, my Department has prioritised prompt claim processing and payment in order to ensure that people who had to cease their employment because of public health restrictions had the security of an income support payment. In addition, while prioritising prompt payment in the circumstances of the pandemic, payment and claim processing controls were applied to reduce the risk of incorrect or fraudulent payments.
In processing claims, my Department always has to strike a balance between applying tight controls and checks on claims on the one hand and not frustrating a person’s entitlement to a payment on the other. This was particularly the case in the extraordinary and exceptional circumstances of Covid-19. Applying normal controls would have meant very long delays in processing the unprecedented number of claims received. This would have led to severe financial hardship for many people and undermined the sense of social solidarity that was required to sustain the public health restrictions and combat the virus.
Notwithstanding these concerns a range of controls were implemented and while not as extensive as would normally be the case the controls did help to reduce and control the level of incorrect payments. For example, in the initial two months to end April 2020 the Department processed some 900,000 PUP claims, with around one third of these being rejected for failing to meet the control criteria. Controls on PUP have continued to be enhanced over the last eighteen months, with a wide range of control work undertaken, including matching against Revenue records.
Overpayments can arise as a result of a statement or representation which was, to the knowledge of the person making it, false or misleading in a material respect or by the willful concealment of a material fact by a claimant, or by new facts or evidence which have come to light since a claim was made. It will be appreciated that a very high threshold of proof must be met to warrant a finding of fraud.
Up to the end of October 2021, my Department has recorded 15,023 overpayments of the PUP totalling €29.3 million, with €10.2 million recovered to date. Of these figures, 443 cases, totalling just under €1.5 million, were attributed to fraud. Typically, overpayments have arisen where a person has failed to declare ongoing employment or where the person was not working prior to the pandemic.
All claimants for the PUP were required to confirm the date on which they last worked as part of the application process. Where this date predated the introduction of Covid related restrictions, their claim was rejected. In addition, from June 2020, all claims were checked against Revenue records to verify a history of previous employment. In a situation where a significant proportion of private employments were closed due to public health restrictions, along with the fact that claim inflows closely tracked the introduction of Covid-19 restrictions, it was reasonable to accept self-declaration as the basis for a loss of employment.
The Deputy will be aware that in addition to those who are fully unemployed, Jobseeker’s Allowance is also payable to individuals who work on a part-time basis. Many of those individuals lost their employment in exactly the same manner as the rest of those in the labour force and were entitled to claim PUP. In total, out of over 900,000 applications for PUP, just over 36,800 cases involved individuals who were claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance as part-time workers prior to their PUP claim. Payment of Jobseeker's Allowance ceased from the date of the award of the PUP payment in these cases. There is no evidence which suggests that persons who were in receipt of Jobseeker’s Allowance prior to the pandemic applied successfully for the PUP once the pandemic started with the exception of the part-time workers just referenced.
In common with many social welfare payments, the PUP is not payable in respect of periods where a person is absent from the State. However, in line with the practice in relation to Jobseeker payments, a person may avail of a limited absence from the State of up to two weeks in a calendar year. My Department carries out a range of checks to identify cases where an individual may no longer be in the State and takes appropriate follow up action. However, the volume of identified cases does not support a reliable estimate of the overall number of such cases.
As is the case with all schemes, the Department is continuing take steps to identify overpayment cases and to seek refunds and will do so in a measured way. Control activity and work on the recovery of overpayments on the scheme will continue into next year.
I trust that this clarifies matters for the Deputy.
